Definitely the only exhibit from that general area of Wilhelma which one could describe as "good" or "acceptable" in any fashion now to be honest, despite how stark and brutalist it looks, I think it is superior to many gibbon exhibits built more recently - or even in the present day!
Sorry I just can't agree to that. There are much better ways to provide gibbons with climbing opportunities than this. there are more naturalistic exhibit with more trees inside. Not saying artificial is bad for gibbons, but it would be better if the ladders are actually hang from the trees and it is just a way for gibbons to go from one tree to another. Also, more greenery definitely help my eyes. From the side the exhibit looks like a plinko machine.
If this was a top 100 of architectural zoo structures, it would be on my list. But here and now I prefer the Saarbrucken cage: it's bigger and the rocky background gives it a far more natural appearance. I think the Stuttgart two level view is great for the visitors but a bit daunting for the gibbons.
This is not a thread about the best exhibit for any given species, I can think of quite a number of gibbon exhibits that are clearly superior from the gibbon point of view. But only including "naturalistic" enclosures would be unfair to European zoo history and make this list quite boring. This brutalist style is however one of the defining features of European zoos 50 years ago and this is one of the better and boldest examples still in use today (and without many modifications still houses the species it was designed for!). I generally also prefer naturalistic exhibits, but I am really drawn to the architecture of this cage and it is certainly a unique design.
That exhibit is certainly a representation of a way people and cultures looked at animals and nature. Not one that I or for that matter many people look particularly positive onto today, but one that we should I think remember. But whether keeping a lot of these brutalist primate houses and exhibits (other not too dissimilar examples in German zoos are also still around) in existence or whether they should be continued to be used for primates largely unchanged, is another matter.
This same building has on the other side some really outdated cages for Javun lutung (which I believed did house proboscis monkey in the past). For those cages I think there is not a lot of scope to continue it with the current inhabitants and should be adapted. Not to foreshadow too much, but tomorrows entry fits rather well in the point you raise as to which of those structures can/should be maintained.
Oh, there are most certainly many gibbon exhibits in Europe which *are* superior to the Wilhelma example - my point is that there are *many* gibbon exhibits which are a lot younger and (superficially) more naturalistic which are worse than the Wilhelma example. Naturalistic appearance cannot be taken as a substitute for actual quality as an enclosure for the species in question, which some exhibits unfortunately seem to do.
Google Earth has updated their imagery of Zoo Zurich so you can now look at a full 3D model of the finished Lewa development: Google Earth I find (cultural) theming an interesting choice of justification for including 'Lewa' in this list. Personally, I think the domestic yak and cashmere goats enclosure at Zurich might be even a tad better in this department.
I'm really enjoying this thread. What stands out as I follow along is that many of the exhibits highlighted thus far, some of which are representative of important European zoo trends, really have no analogue in North America. Some of this is understandable -- after all, American zoos invariably post-date the 19th century "authentic exotic" architectural trend. Most also don't have centuries-old houses on the premises, though the Philadelphia, Baltimore, and National Zoos all do and largely squander them! The really interesting contrast is when it comes to the modernist poured concrete Tecton stuff and just-featured gibbon cage. In the US you do get a fair number of 1960s-70s concrete-heavy zoo buildings with swooping ramps and the like (Bronx's World of Birds, Minnesota's and Toronto's larger buildings, the Baltimore/New England/Seattle Aquaria), but the architecture doesn't really play a part in the animal spaces themselves. The only exception I can think of was the former limited popularity of the somewhat abstract "concrete ice floe" exhibit style for polar bears/pinnipeds/penguins, but I'm not sure there are any examples of that type still in use in North America. I do think American zoos could learn from the greater diversity of exhibit seen in Europe. Something like Cotswold's Walled Garden -- a pleasant space with an eclectic mix of species -- would be especially worth replicating rather than yet another of the same loosely defined geographic zones. In fact, I think some aspects of this contribute greatly to the charm of San Diego Zoo, where there are still some trails with somewhat random mixes of species in a pleasant (subtropical) garden setting.
First a thank you to @wstefan who uploaded some pictures of the Saarbruecken gibbon cage, which were lacking from the side, which have kindly been added by @TeaLovingDave in the original post. I am not a big fan of that area, which I personally find a bit of a waste of space, regardless of the good theming and the exposition on biodiversity (of cheese ). What helps in Europe is also the much larger difference in culture between the different countries, which is naturally more limited in the USA (though that is off-course also a diverse country in itself). But I do find it striking to what extent "geographic" theming is the nonplusultra in the vast majority of American zoos. It is a prevalent trend in Europe too, but many zoos don't take it that serious... It is hard to imagine such an English garden in Germany for example. It does help that Europeans are generally more heritage minded than many other countries. But also here there are lots of examples of where heritage is neglected.
I think it simply boils down to question if heritage buildings can be meaningfully repurposed for zoo needs or not. If not, they become just a very costly burden and get neglected in order to not throw away funds needed elsewhere.
That is only part of the equation, the other part is the imagination of the responsible zoo management team. I am not saying that every zoo building should be maintained, but some zoos have been more successful in repurposing than others and that can't be just brought down to money alone.
Yep, true, some zoos are better at it than others. But at the end of the day, you still have some structures that are probably impossible to do. Like that Lubetkin penguin pool. I tried few times to imagine any meaningful new use (with unlimited funds available) and I coudn´t come with anything, nada. I will use this post to say I enjoy this whole thead immensely and can´t wait for next entries in 100 must sees. Some real revelations to me so far. And a bonus. Mansion Lešná in the middle of zoo Zlin which doesn´t contain any animal exhibits anymore. A listed heritage building, nice to look at but recent general repair of roof did cost 2,3 mio euro! Maintenance of listed buildings has potential to bankcrupt smaller zoos (in this case it got funded by local goverment luckily so it doesn´t prolong a list of neglected and desolate heritage).
18. Geigy house Zoo Basel, Switzerland Opened: 1969, complete renovation in 2012 Size: 6000 square metres Inhabitants: western gorilla, W-African chimpanzee, Sumatran orangutan and 7 neotropical monkey species Basel excels in what is arguably the core business of any zoo: observing animals. The Geigy house is no exception, the focus here are the animals, with no distraction in the form of theming of any kind. The original concrete-heavy primate house was completely renovated, with indoor enclosures extended and finally some real outdoor enclosures added for the big apes. Space in a city zoo is limited, so it is used optimally. Indoor enclosures are compartmentalised and off-show areas are also accessible. This means that the apes always have access to a complex, if largely artificial environment, that allows for natural behaviour and privacy (both from visitors and each other). For example, the chimpanzee enclosure consists of 4 connected indoor enclosures with 2 outdoor enclosures. The result are multiple well-functioning social groups of apes in complex environments with a lot of enrichment, with good up-close viewing options for the public. It could however not been much further away from a rainforest. This is thus very much a house with the Swiss philosophy (Heini Hediger!) that preaches that space is not everything. Though the spider monkeys can still complain that their space really is still quite limited. @lintworm @lintworm @lintworm @lintworm @lintworm Similar exhibits: the great ape house in Wilhelma, Stuttgart, Germany, was opened only in 2012 but especially the indoor enclosures follow a traditional design, albeit on a much larger scale @lintworm @lintworm @lintworm @German Zoo World
Well that is the thing with randomization We have already had about half of these concrete heavy structures by now. Btw. thank you @Jana and @Gondwana for your kind words. I am happy to hear you are enjoying this thread. As always such a thread is more work then you hope, but as long as people are enjoying it (or provoked ) that is worth it.
Just the Grzimek house alone is more concrete than you have in this thread sofar, so you’re not even halve-way in the amount of concrete needed to create this thread Never heard of the Geigy-house tbh. Looks like a ton of concrete, repurposed into todays standards as best as they could. I’ve see concrete ape-houses like this in Germany before, can’t remember exactly where. It also reminds me of the small primate house of Antwerp. Oh dear, now I’m worried that your concrete heart melted over that building as well
I’m an accountant, so also pretty cold and brutal but in a different way I’m not a big fan of heavy use of concrete in exhibits. Even if it’s great architecture, or shows the heart and soul of an certain era, I still struggle to put it on an “exhibits you got to see” list (even if it very obviously belongs on it). I don’t feel at home in the coldness of it all and I can’t help but feel that the animals also won’t even though that’s pure anthropomorphism. But like I said, if the idea of this thread is to showcase the full scope of exhibitry that Europe has to offer these brutal buildings belong on this list. Especially if they have been converted or expanded to fit modern standards, which many times is really hard.
